Focus on Film: Anchorman (2004)
What makes a film good? What draws an audience? How can you make great cinema? Here at Focus on Learning, we offer exciting English Plus courses with Film and Creative Writing.
If you have an appetite for imagination, film is a powerful medium for education. A visual and often visceral medium, the expression of thoughts and concepts in film are not restricted to verbal communication. From Hitchcock to Herzog, from Star Wars to Interstellar, no art permeates our consciousness quite the way film does. It goes straight to our feelings, deep down into the very heart of our being.
Whether you’re a creative soul with a story to tell or someone with a passion for performance; whether you’re interested in the industry or just love watching films, the silver screen brings these ideas to life. What you haven’t seen yet can be more important than what you’ve seen already. Film is much more than a series of still images put together to create the illusion of movement.
Film can be one of the most inspiring ways to teach and to learn English, or any other language. In the words of Bong Joon Ho, director of Parasite, the 2020 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture, “Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” This works both ways - watching English language films with English subtitles can be a great way to reinforce your understanding of the language, while for native speakers, watching foreign films with English subtitles opens the door to a whole new world of cinema.
Here, we focus on the world of film criticism, which provides a rich resource of engaging English writing that can be used for comprehension and discussion. The next review in our new ‘Focus on Film’ series is 2004’s retro-noughties comedy, Anchorman.
Anchorman (2004)
Directed by Adam McKay; Written by Will Ferrell & Adam McKay; Starring Will Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell
Spoiler-Free Review
If you want a wacky comedy full of laughs and randomness, then you should watch Airplane, Hot Shots, or anything by Mel Brooks. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a film that I did not watch until 2009, some time after its release in 2004. Not being a fan of Will Ferrell, I did not rush to see it, but after years of people quoting it and singing its praises I finally gave in and gave it a chance.
Now of course, I am aware that you should not go into a film expecting great things after hearing the hype, as you will invariably be disappointed. But even with this in mind, I was utterly let down. Ten minutes in, I was already thinking about turning it off, but I convinced myself to sit through it, trusting in the rave reviews my friends had given, and willing them to be proven right. Ninety-four minutes later I regretted my decision.
I understand that Will Ferrell’s films are supposed to be wacky and silly, but that does not explain the complete disregard of the establishing introduction. The characters were inconsistent, the story was clichéd and predictable, and any decent ideas that they did have were underdone or ruined completely. Even in a wacky and random world, the inhabitants themselves need to be consistent and follow the rules that have been laid out for them.
For example, the opening narration goes thusly:
“There was a time, a time before cable, when the local anchorman reigned supreme. When people believed everything they heard on TV. This was an age when only men were allowed to read the news. And in San Diego, one anchorman was more man then the rest. His name was Ron Burgundy. He was like a god walking amongst mere mortals. He had a voice that could make a wolverine purr and suits so fine they made Sinatra look like a hobo. In other words, Ron Burgundy was the balls.”
After hearing this, I expected to see a James Bond-type character reading the news: a suave, sophisticated, intelligent man’s man. Instead I was “treated” to an entire credits sequence showing various clips of Burgundy acting a complete buffoon. In other words, Ron Burgundy was balls.
Maybe Will Ferrell could not create an intelligent, sophisticated character who was also a comic device. Maybe he did not think it was possible. Maybe he had never seen the likes of The Naked Gun or Blackadder. Whatever the reason, Ferrell was more comfortable in the “idiot” role he seems to have typecast himself in.
A lot of the jokes were along the lines of, “haha, he said a rude word” or disjointed sentences full “comedy words” such as, “I'll have three fingers of Glenlivet, with a little bit of pepper... and some cheese.” or, “I'm gonna punch you in the ovary, that's what I'm gonna do. A straight shot. Right to the babymaker.” There were also a lot of arguments in which the banter was ridiculously childish, unoriginal, and not at all witty.
I particularly resented the tone in which jokes and punch lines were delivered, overtly suggesting that I was supposed to find what they were saying amusing. Real comedy should not require this, it should work on its own merit. Some of these lines might even have been funny had they been delivered by someone skilled.
In short, if you are hoping to be entertained by an original story, likeable characters, and comedic genius, look elsewhere. Will Ferrell is not a talented man. For further insight into how poor this film is, continue reading for my spoiler-filled review:
Review with Spoilers
It is difficult to say what makes something funny, but pretty easy to tell what is not. This film clearly is not.
I have previously talked about how inconsistent the characters were; this is a trait of poor films and TV shows, including the woeful series of movies directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, which includes such cinematic rot as Date Movie (2006) and Epic Movie (2007). In Anchorman, the randomness and wackiness is not the inherent problem. The problem is that the characters and their world were not established as such. Films often require you to suspend your disbelief: Steve Carell’s idiot character Brick should by no rights have a job on a news show, but we allow it for the sake of the comedy, just like we accept that Laurel and Hardy manage to find new jobs every week despite their awful work record. This is all right. Completely changing a character from how they have been established in the beginning without good reason is not.
Burgundy was introduced as a James Bond in the introductory voice-over, but the film failed to show it, and continued with this theme with all of its characters. Oddly, the Bond-like character appeared in a few scenes: when Vince Vaughn’s rival news team appeared, Burgundy was able to put them down successfully with his smug words, which fit the character of the introduction (although the argument basically came down to a childish “We’re better than you”). Burgundy ended up an amalgamation of three characters: the Bond, the buffoon, and Ferrell as himself. The Bond appeared rarely, despite him being the character who should have been present throughout.
The buffoon took a leading role and became increasingly irritating, especially with his “comedy voice” which I suppose was meant to make the things he said funnier. One gag I’m sure Ferrell thoroughly enjoyed was, “discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina.” Ha ha, he said vagina! Saying “vagina” was unnecessary; I think the joke would have been funnier if he had just said “blowhole.” The joke here should have been that he was pretending to be knowledgeable and failing, not that he said “vagina.” A subtler choice would have maintained plausible deniability. No one, not even an idiot, would needlessly say “vagina” if they were trying to impress someone.
Ferrell as himself appeared in any scene that required emotion or romance. He spoke in his own voice, losing his suave affectation or '“comedic” buffoon voice. One scene that was particularly painful to watch took place after he loses his dog and calls the newsroom from a phone booth. The fake crying is too over the top, and not in a funny way, more like a really painfully unfunny way. This was followed by the quote, “I'm in a glass case of emotion!” delivered in that comedy style to suggest it is supposed to be funny and could hopefully turn into a catchphrase. If it was delivered with real emotion, it could have been a funny line, but Ferrell is not the actor this character requires.
Other characters also suffer from major inconsistencies that the writers either did not consider or probably thought would be amusingly ironic. They did not succeed. The news team is introduced individually: Brian Fantana (Paul “Mike from Friends” Rudd) is a ladies’ man, Champ Kind (David “Todd Packer from The Office” Koechner) is a chauvinistic, redneck sports nut with a cowboy hat, and Brick Tamland (The 40 Year Old Virgin & The Office’s Steve Carell) - to put it nicely - has a brick for a brain.
Then, during the rest of the film, Fantana displays little to no success with women (completely disregarding his introduction as a ladies’ man). Champ shows homosexual feelings of love towards Burgundy (despite a scene in which they explain that none of them understand the concept of love). Brick remains consistently mentally challenged, but his introduction has him speaking uncharacteristically clearly to explain that he has an IQ of 48. From that point on he becomes stiff, idiotic, and speaks in short words, which works for the character description, but is an odd departure from how we saw him at the beginning of the film.
Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is the final leading character, yet another who fails to keep true to their opening description. We first meet her at a party where Ron tries to pick her up with the line, “I want to be on you.” He fails spectacularly as she is not impressed. Neither was I: James Bond would never have said that!
We next see her when (surprise!) she joins the news team, to much dismay, although they all find her attractive and take turns hitting on her. The narration explains that she is used to this sort of thing and does not let it get to her. She brushes off the advances of Brick, Champ, and Fantana, but when Ron tries again and messes up, she tells him that she expected more of him. At this point I question why she would possibly expect more from the man who said, “I want to be on you.” It is not long before she is inexplicably in love with the man and I am wondering where the strong, self-reliant woman went.
Another major player is Ed Harken (Fred Willard), the station manager. Unfortunately, this role suffers from Willard’s acting phase of appearing in anything and phoning in his performance. The rest of the film plays like a “spot the celebrity” game in which we are invited to point and laugh at the familiar faces popping up in unusual places in strange outfits. Ben Stiller as a Spaniard! Ha ha ha no.
The plot goes pretty much like this: boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy and girl break up for stupid reason, boy and girl reconcile. Yeah, that story you’ve seen a million times in pretty much every film; the story that is usually attached to another more interesting story. In my opinion, more attention should have been paid to the news team rivalries, which are played out like gang warfare. That was an interesting concept, but they did nothing with it except tack it on as a joke. And that is all there is to say about that.
Another change I would have made would be the scene in which Burgundy speaks to his dog Baxter. I almost found this amusing, but they overloaded the scene with punch lines. What would have been better is if they had taken the separate jokes and dotted them throughout the film, instead of squeezing them all into one bit.
The subtitle of the film is “The Legend of Ron Burgundy.” Nothing he did during his run-of-the-mill romance story was in the least bit legendary. He was introduced as San Diego’s number one news reporter, but that was it. Unfortunately even this was not done well. As viewers, we have no idea why he is the best. All we see are bloopers and some audience responses to him being on-screen.
I would have liked to see him show us that he was the best by watching one of his reports. Take Bruce Almighty for instance. Jim Carrey plays Bruce, a charming, funny reporter who does not get the chance to prove himself as a serious journalist. We actually see this through watching him in action reporting a story. We are not told this by a narrator and expected to accept it. We are not expected to continue to accept it despite watching a series of blunders, and being let in on the knowledge that all he does is read from the auto-cue.
I found out after watching this that I had seen the unrated version with extra scenes. Presumably the filmmakers thought these would be the scenes that fans would respond to most, but they did little for me. All they added was more swearing and toilet humour. In conclusion, comedy writers and filmmakers need to read through the scripts after they have written them, to see if they make sense and are actually funny before they go ahead and film them. Will Ferrell is not a talented man.
Comprehension Questions
How long after the release of Anchorman did the writer finally watch the film?
Why did the writer decide to watch the film?
Which actor plays the lead role of Ron Burgundy in the film?
What is Ron Burgundy’s profession?
What type of character did the writer expect Ron Burgundy to be based on the opening narration?
To which other famous character does the writer liken his expectations of Ron Burgundy?
What was the problem that the writer had with the characters in the film and why?
Which three characters does the writer consider Run Burgundy to be an amalgamation of?
Which plotline does the writer think it would have been more interesting to explore?
Do you think that the writer enjoyed the film? Why/why not?
Bonus: Have you seen or heard of this film? Did you enjoy it? Discuss.
